Can you be more specific about why this is "crap"? The author describes himself as a Conservative. Why would he go out of his way to rubbish the party he supports if there wasn't a case to answer?
I can't say I understand the economic arguments either way but it is, at the very least, interesting that a large number of economically-literate people don't buy into the "Labour screwed the economy + austerity is the only solution" narrative. It's a shame that the arguments involved are too subtle (and too subversive of the right wing agenda) to be fairly and accurately represented by the media.
Things like this - '
Finally, Labour in 1997 inherited a debt of 42% of GDP. By the start of the global banking crises 2008 the debt had fallen to 35% - a near 22% reduction page 6 ONS Surprisingly, a debt of 42% was not seen as a major problem and yet at 35% the sky was falling down?'
The national debt wasn't reduced at all under Labour, in fact it grew despite a global boom period. Because of the boom, the size of our economy grew so as a percentage, the debt became lower....but it's still a large debt. And the author is selecting favourable dates for his comparison like 1997-2008 instead of the whole term Labour were in office including the crash/recession. The Tory's ran the country and had growth and a recession within their period in office but the author's selected dates for Labour conveniently only compare the growth period....which happened not just for us but for the world. The reality is that Labour should/could have reduced the debt prior to the crash but didn't.
But if the author is going to talk about dates and times when political parties 'inherit' economies, he can't choose dates mid term. So let's state it as it is...in 1997, Labour 'inherited' government debt to gdp of circa 48.2% and when they left, it was circa 67.1%.
'
Secondly, in 1997 Labour inherited a deficit of 3.9% of GDP (not a balanced budget ) and by 2008 it had fallen to 2.1% - a reduction of a near 50% - Impressive! Hence, it's implausible and ludicrous to claim there was overspending. The deficit was then exacerbated by the global banking crises after 2008. See HM Treasury. Note, the 1994 deficit of near 8% haaaaaah!
And again.....he seems happy to point out that Labour didn't inherit a balanced budget in 1997 (3.9% deficit) and points to what a wonderful job Labour did to reduce it to 2.1% in 2008 (whilst conveniently rounding up the percentages to make it sound like a '50% reduction'...which it isn't). But that's not what the Tory's 'inherited' is it? And he fails to mention that when Labour 'inherited' a 3.9% deficit, the trend was heading to a balanced budget recovering from the last recession. The economy was well on the mend and in fact, this trend continued where the UK actually had a surplus of 3.6%. So to reverse this surplus and go back to a 2.1% deficit.....in a worldwide boom period......shouldn't be labelled as 'impressive'. In fact, the opposite of impressive would be more accurate. To go from +3.6% to -2.1% with everything going well and nothing negative to trigger a drop isnt 'impressive' in my book.
And his final sentence.... he picks 1994 was when the deficit was at its worst due to the previous recession of 1992-1993. So why not compare this to 2010, which is also a couple of years after the latest recession (and happens to be when Labour vacated office) rather than 2008 before the recession? So for balance, he mentions the 1994 deficit as being a shocking 8% (a year or so after the recession) but the deficit in 2010 (also a year or so after the recession) was 11.4%.
This isn't a balanced piece of journalism that highlights the positives and negatives of both political parties records....it's biased. On this basis, I can't see how this guy can claim to be a Tory. Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending the Tory's record......cos it's crap. But Labour aren't/weren't any better.
